Final Order 2

Order Details: Copy of Judgment
Pdf Text: MHSCA30008612025 Presented on :03.05.2025
Registered on : 01.10.2025
Decided on : 03.01.2026
Duration : Yrs. Mths. Days
- 08 -
IN THE COURT OF SMALL CAUSES, AT MUMBAI
(APPELLATE BENCH)
(BANDRA BRANCH)
REVISION APPLICATION NO.90 of 2025
IN
EXHIBIT NO.78
IN
RAE & R SUIT NO.456/951 OF 2007
1. Smt. Prabhavatidevi Jangbahadur Singh
Age: 85 years, Occu: Housewife
(deleted since
deceased)
2. Shri Ramchandra Jangbahadur Singh
Age: 58 years, Occu: Business
Address as per plaint
Ramsevak Singh Chawl No.3 Survey
No.22, Hissa No.1(part) C. T. S No.343
(pt) Kurar Village, Malad (E)
Mumbai 400097
Actual Address
Residing at Jangbahadur Niwas,
Adarsh Nagar, Near Kritika Wine,
Kurar Village, Malad (East),
Mumbai- 400 097
Appellants
(Org. Defendants)
Versus
1.
1A
Shri Ramsevak Singh Manikraj Singh
Age: 80 yrs, Occ: Retired
(since deceased) deleted
Room No.8 Ramsevak Singh Chawl No.1
Kurar Village, Malad (E)
Mumbai- 400097.
Smt. Seema Santosh Singh Pillai
Aged about 49 years, Occ: Housewife
Residing at Flat No.541 Tarapur Towers
O-Wing, 10th floor Oshiwara Andheri
(W), Mumbai- 400053
Respondent
(Org Plaintiff)
-- 1 of 5 --
Revision No.90 of 2025 Judgment..
::2::
2. Mrs. Asha Arvind Singh
Age: 57 years, Occu: Housewife
3. Mrs. Laxmi Rajeev Singh
Age: 55 years, Occu: Housewife
4. Mrs. Kiran Sanjay Singh
Age: 50 years, Occu: Housewife
Given wrong address at Ramsevak Singh
Chawl No.3, Survey No.22, Hissa No.1
(part), CTS No.343 (pt), Kurar Village,
Malad (East), Mumbai- 400 097.
Respondents
(Proposed Defendant)
Advocate Mr. Jitendra G. Damani for applicant.
Coram : Shri Ashish A. Ayachit,
Addl. Chief Judge
&
Shri D. R. Mali, Judge.
C.R. No. 41 (B.B.)
Date : 3rd Day of January, 2026.
JUDGMENT :
(Per Shri Ashish A. Ayachit, Addl. Chief Judge)
This Revision Application is filed under Section 34 of the
Maharashtra Rent Control Act, 1999 (hereinafter referred to as “the
MRC Act”), challenging the legality and validity of the impugned order
dated 05.04.2025 passed below Exhibit–78 in R.A.E. & R. Suit No.
456/951 of 2007 by the Court of Small Causes at Mumbai (B.B.), C. R.
No. 37.
2. We have perused the Revision Application, the impugned
order, and the record.
-- 2 of 5 --
Revision No.90 of 2025 Judgment..
::3::
3. We have heard the learned Advocate Mr. Jitendra G.
Damani for the Applicant.
4. The matter was heard at the admission stage. A specific
query was put to the learned Advocate as to how the impugned order is
revisable under Section 34 of the MRC Act in view of the Full Bench
judgment of the Hon’ble High Court in Bhartiben Shah v. Gracy Thomas,
2013 SCC OnLine Bom 98 .
5. The learned Advocate for the Applicant sought a couple of
adjournments to address the issue of maintainability. Today, he
submitted that since the impugned orders are erroneous, they are liable
to be challenged in revision before this Court. He further submitted
that the address of deceased Defendant No.1 was incorrectly mentioned
and that notice was improperly published in the newspaper. It was
contended that Application Exhibit–61 was filed for correction of the
address of the deceased Defendant No. 1, and that the Trial Court had
directed incorporation of the correct address as per the death certificate.
However, according to the learned Advocate, the correction was not
reflected, and therefore a Review Application (Exhibit–78) was filed. On
these grounds, it was submitted that the impugned order requires
consideration in revision.
POINTS FOR DETERMINATION:-
6. The following points arise for our consideration and
determination. We have recorded our findings for the reasons given
below :
-- 3 of 5 --
Revision No.90 of 2025 Judgment..
::4::
Sr. No. POINTS FINDINGS
1. Whether impugned order is revisable? No
2. What order ? Revision application is
dismissed as per final
order.
REASONS
AS TO POINT NO. 1:
7. Upon careful perusal of the record, it is evident that the
Applicant/ defendant filed Review Application (Exhibit–78) seeking
review of the order dated 20.12.2024 passed below Exhibit–61,
whereby the Trial Court had allowed the application for setting aside
abatement and for bringing the legal heirs of deceased Defendant No. 1
on record. Such an order is not revisable under Section 34 of the MRC
Act in view of the authoritative pronouncement of the Hon’ble High
Court in
Bhartiben Shah vs. Smt. Gracy Thomas and Others (Supra).
8. The Review Application challenging the said non-revisable
order came to be rejected by the learned Trial Judge by a reasoned
order dated 05.04.2025. From the impugned order, it appears that the
grievance pertains to the address of the deceased Defendant and the
service of notice, which are procedural in nature. Since the original
order passed below Exhibit–61 is itself not revisable, the rejection of the
Review Application arising therefrom also does not give rise to a
revisable order under Section 34 of the MRC Act. Consequently, the
impugned order is not amenable to revisional jurisdiction. We, therefore
answered point No. 1 in the negative.
-- 4 of 5 --
Revision No.90 of 2025 Judgment..
::5::
As to Point No. 2:
9. In view of the findings recorded above, the Revision
Application fails. As the matter has been decided at the admission stage
without issuing notice to the other side, no order as to costs is
warranted. We answered point No. 2 accordingly and passed the
following order.
O R D E R
1. The Revision application is dismissed.
2. No order as to costs
3. Notify the order to learned Trial Court.
I Agree,
(Dipak R. Mali) (Ashish A. Ayachit)
Judge Addl. Chief Judge,
C. R. No. 41 C. R. No. 41
03.01.2026 03.01.2026
Judgment dictated on : 03.01.2026
Judgment transcribed on : 03.01.2026
Judgment checked & signed on : 03.01.2026
/home/pa31/Varsha Wankhade/A. A. AAyachit/January-2026/Revision/90-2025 Revision.odt
-- 5 of 5 --